OK, I’ve watched it again and looked at some the researchers that are presented, and debated the contents with a friend. First question: Is there a difference between a ‘scientist’ and a ‘researcher’? In the episode they seem to interview ‘researchers’ is there a notable difference here?
The first theory/hypothesis is that humans that I blind can sense emotion through the eyes, using alternative pathways in the brain. These pathways only stand a chance when the visual-cortex is out of buisness. It seemed legit to me.
Another theory was presented by Michael Persinger, that human thought can cross spaces using Earth’s magnetic field. I’m not an expert, but nothing in my education goes against this theory, but a few problems remain: A scale problem, and a computational problem. If I stand near a roadsign, I’ll exert a gravitational pull on it. This is logic. However this force has no real world impact, due to scale. The force between me and the road sign is being overpowered by Earth itself. Add to that the host of other physical factors I forgot about. If we humans are connected via Earth’s magnetic field, we’re talking 6 billion people. Now there is a computational problem. How does the brain wade through all that noise, to find the relevant information ?!?
A Third theory was that humans can somewhat predict the future. How is this possible? I can’t help think of Laplace’s Demon and quantum theory. They solve this by introducing Michio Kaku, that explains that antimatter is in fact ordinary matter, travelling back in time. Now we’re faced with the problem of explaining how matter and antimatter interacts without annihilating. The Tevatron particle-collider has been using protons and antiprotons for years. Everytime they collide, they annihilate. Why would the human brain be an exception to this part of physics ?!?
This show is usually quite provocative and offers a good chance to think about things, but this time I around I had trouble weeding out the bullshit. I’m quite sure it is there….